...militants cannot be deterred by the inevitable hostility they encounter from the representatives of the ruling ideology in all its forms.

I find this quite a scary turn of phrase. Is eveyone an enemy? You mention mainstream media to Anarchists.

Apart from that it lays out ICC vision well which is very helpful. The point about a World Party not being a federation of national sections is a crucial point in the text. Is there a specific text which elaborates on this or explains the difference?

A relevant paragraph from an article by the ICC in 1979. Written by C.D.Ward.

Quote:

There are many people who want to be ‘leaders’ of the working class. But most of them confuse the bourgeois concept of leadership with the way that the proletariat generates its own leadership. Those who, in the name of leadership, call on the class to abandon its most crucial task to a minor­ity are not leading the class towards communism, but strengthening the hold of bourgeois ideology in the class, the ideology which from cradle to grave tries to convince workers that they are incapable of organizing themselves, that they must entrust others with the task of organizing them. The revolutionary party will only contribute to the progress towards communism by stimulating and generalizing a consciousness which runs entirely counter to the ideology of the bourgeoisie: a consciousness of the inexhaustible capacity of the class to organize itself and become conscious of itself as the subject of history. Communists, secreted by a class which contains no new relations of exploitation within itself, are unique in the history of revolutionary parties in that they do everything they can to make their own function unnecessary as class consciousness and activity becomes a homogeneous reality throughout all of the class. The more the proletariat advances on the road to communism, the more the whole class will become the living expression of “man’s pos­itive self-awareness”, of a liberated and consci­ous human community.

A relevant paragraph from an article by the ICC in 1979. Written by C.D.Ward.

Quote:

There are many people who want to be ‘leaders’ of the working class. But most of them confuse the bourgeois concept of leadership with the way that the proletariat generates its own leadership. Those who, in the name of leadership, call on the class to abandon its most crucial task to a minor­ity are not leading the class towards communism, but strengthening the hold of bourgeois ideology in the class, the ideology which from cradle to grave tries to convince workers that they are incapable of organizing themselves, that they must entrust others with the task of organizing them. The revolutionary party will only contribute to the progress towards communism by stimulating and generalizing a consciousness which runs entirely counter to the ideology of the bourgeoisie: a consciousness of the inexhaustible capacity of the class to organize itself and become conscious of itself as the subject of history. Communists, secreted by a class which contains no new relations of exploitation within itself, are unique in the history of revolutionary parties in that they do everything they can to make their own function unnecessary as class consciousness and activity becomes a homogeneous reality throughout all of the class. The more the proletariat advances on the road to communism, the more the whole class will become the living expression of “man’s pos­itive self-awareness”, of a liberated and consci­ous human community.

Fred, this quote seems to me to be entirely compatible with Marx's 'idealism-materialism', because it stresses 'class consciousness' and 'bourgeois ideology', and never mentions Engels' 'matter' producing 'ideas'.

I'd just like clarification by the ICC that 'inexhaustible capacity' includes workers' democratic control of physics and maths, as of all science and knowledge production.

I also like the mention of the self-destruction of any 'party', during the process ("becomes"), not after it.

If radicalchains means that he doesn't see the relevance of the passage I quoted above about the party, I posted it because the CLT are concerned about the nature of the Party and whether it should be a mass party, as in the 2nd.International or a small vanguard party organised at world level. The ICC think the latter and go to some trouble to explain why in their reply.

The ICC reply also clears up for me a certain point made by Marx about the working class as part of civil society.

ICC wrote:

...just as the working class is a “class of civil society which is not a class of civil society”, so the revolutionary organisation which is a product of this class is essentially an alien body in capitalist society, and its militants cannot be deterred by the inevitable hostility they encounter from the representatives of the ruling ideology in all its forms.

I have often wondered about how workers can and cannot be a class of civil society simultaneously. But now the penny has dropped. We workers are aliens inside capitalism. We don't belong. We're just there to be screwed. To acknowledge this and to say it out loud is loathsome to the ruling class for it exposes their dirty secret. Hence their hostility

And just finally to end with some gossip! A new thread on libcom hosted by Jamal about the CLT and the ICC manages to pour scorn on both organisations while hedging its bets about the honesty of the CLT at the same time. In Jamal's view now, however, the ICC appears to have lost all credibility.

Ah well! You win some, you lose some. All's fair in love and war etc. And there's always an inevitable hostility flowing from the ruling ideology, in its various disguises, as the quote above points out.

On the OP and also I suppose the "gossip" - I suppose that it's about the idea of (about?) communism not actual people and personalities that matter.

Of course the notion of a terroristic leadership of these ideas etc. is a worry to anyone. But let's not get bogged down in whether X or Y is a good communist person, when they too would end up very different from worker's power.

The idea that marxists should jostle like this seems to me absurd. Leave it upto Anarchists and I suppose Bordgia. Anarchism is a pipe dream and there's no Communist International to be found.

I don't think RC was talking to Pierre lem, because Pierre cancelled his post. I also don't think I'm "jostling" as you put it but discussing seriously about workers seen as "a class of civil society, which it isn't!" And of course some gossip thrown in!

But what about the Greek soldiers? A class of soldiers who are challenging the concept "soldier" by not doing what they're told. They've been pushed into criticism. Wow! Don't you like that?

Haha I'm not talking about anyone specifically, I don't know what you're been saying everywhere in the world but I wasn't claiming you were jostling above.

Not sure what you're asking me about the Greek soldiers? I don't think soldiers are a class apart, and if you are referring to my comment on the red terror, then please post there if you want to discuss anything (mindlessness aside ofc)